Re: First stable release: version designation?

I also have a definite (I guess that's closer to strong that slight) preference for 2.0. With version numbers, a gap is less likely to cause trouble than the ambiguity of an overlap, and easy to document (vs. with ambiguity, one wouldn't even think to consult the documentation without knowing the

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I vote for 2.0. On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Prabeesh K. wrote: > I also vote for 2.0. > > On 5 May 2017 at 21:33, Hadar Hod wrote: > > > I also vote for 2.0, for the same reasons Dan stated. > > As Cham mentioned, we can clarify any confusion in the documentation. > > > > On Fri, May 5, 201

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I also vote for 2.0. On 5 May 2017 at 21:33, Hadar Hod wrote: > I also vote for 2.0, for the same reasons Dan stated. > As Cham mentioned, we can clarify any confusion in the documentation. > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ahmet Altay > wrote: > > > I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 w

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I also vote for 2.0, for the same reasons Dan stated. As Cham mentioned, we can clarify any confusion in the documentation. On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan > mentioned. It will be less confusing for the us

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan mentioned. It will be less confusing for the users overall. Ahmet On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > Strongly for 2.0.0: > * Aljoscha > * Cham > * Dan > * Luke > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine w

Re: First stable release: version designation?

Strongly for 2.0.0: * Aljoscha * Cham * Dan * Luke Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0: * Davor * Ismael * Kenn Strongly for 1.0.0: none. Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0: * Amit * Jesse * JB * Manu * Mingmin * Ted * Thomas W. Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7.

Re: First stable release: version designation?

The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as opposed to "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding to Ted's question. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns ? > > On Thu, M

Re: First stable release: version designation?

google doc allows anyone to see revision history. Meaning, if anyone fakes someone else's vote, we would see immediately. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > Let's not use the side document, please. The document has to be > world-writable, and accidental changes can occur. > >

Re: First stable release: version designation?

Slight preference for 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0 Thanks, Manu On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 7:24 AM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > +1 for 2.0.0 for following reason. > > I think the main Downside for using 2.0.0 is the fact that people > incorrectly assuming this to be the second stable release. This can

Re: First stable release: version designation?

+1 for 2.0.0 for following reason. I think the main Downside for using 2.0.0 is the fact that people incorrectly assuming this to be the second stable release. This can be easily clarified through documentation. I think Beam is more mature than a product that is moving from an unstable 0.9 to the

Re: First stable release: version designation?

Let's not use the side document, please. The document has to be world-writable, and accidental changes can occur. I'd kindly ask to use email for this one, as usual, to keep a record (in this specific case). On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > What's the difference between first and

Re: First stable release: version designation?

What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns ? On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero < mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here > Wqz5B

Re: First stable release: version designation?

Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here . I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago and the responses afterwards. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu wrote

Re: First stable release: version designation?

Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps. Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise wrote: > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp. > > -- > sent from mobile > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" wrote: > > > I slightly

Re: First stable release: version designation?

My vote, like Davor: Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0 On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Thomas Weise wrote: > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp. > > -- > sent from mobile > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" wrote: > >> I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but f

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp. -- sent from mobile On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" wrote: > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine with 2.0.0. > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik > wrote: > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0 > > > > On Thu, May 4, 20

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine with 2.0.0. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0 > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles > wrote: > > > I'll join Davor's group. > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM,

Re: First stable release: version designation?

Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0 On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > I'll join Davor's group. > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine this > > after some time has passed. > > > > If

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I'll join Davor's group. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine this > after some time has passed. > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary: > > Strongly for 2.0.0: > * Aljoscha > *

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine this after some time has passed. If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary: Strongly for 2.0.0: * Aljoscha * Dan Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0: * Davor Strongly for 1.0.0: none. S

Re: First stable release: version designation?

If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very clear on maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as mature as Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some run on YARN better than others, etc. My only reservation here is that the Apache commun

Re: First stable release: version designation?

If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use scenarios e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is released is indeed stable. Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release compared to 1.0 release. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:

First stable release: version designation?

I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way.

Re: First stable release: version designation?

It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This issue is probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the question once to see whether a consensus is possible. Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the project would be negatively impacted if we

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense for people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the confusion between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5. On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Davor, > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 wo

Re: First stable release: version designation?

Hi Davor, For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We have a fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing Dataflow). However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order to avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 could he

Re: First stable release: version designation?

The following explanation for adopting 2.0 version should be put in release notes for the stable release. Cheers On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Dan Halperin wrote: > A large set of Beam users will be coming from the pre-Apache technologies > (aka Google Cloud Dataflow, Scio). Because Dataflow

Re: First stable release: version designation?

A large set of Beam users will be coming from the pre-Apache technologies (aka Google Cloud Dataflow, Scio). Because Dataflow was 1.0 before Beam started, there is a lot of pre-existing documentation, Stack Overflow, etc. that refers to version 1.0 to mean what is now a year-and-a-half old release.

Re: First stable release: version designation?

+1 to what Jesse and Amit said. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Amit Sela wrote: > I think 1.0.0 for a couple of reasons: > > * It makes sense coming after 0.X (+1 Jesse). > * It is the FIRST stable release as a project, regardless of its roots. > * while the SDK is definitely a 2.0.0, Beam is

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I think 1.0.0 for a couple of reasons: * It makes sense coming after 0.X (+1 Jesse). * It is the FIRST stable release as a project, regardless of its roots. * while the SDK is definitely a 2.0.0, Beam is not made only of the SDK, and I hope we'll have more milage with users running all sorts of ru

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I think 1.0 makes the most sense. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 10:57 AM Davor Bonaci wrote: > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable release" > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something el

First stable release: version designation?

The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable release" for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision on this matter